I have seen usage of the term 'System' to refer to hardware + software.
That's a pretty broad term, and should have an appropriately broad definition. It would cover far more than hardware + software and I would be hesitant to establish any disjointness.
My thoughts on agent convienence classes has not changed, but if we are to include convienance specializations of Agent we should probably be discussing definitions.
A first crack at a definition for system would be "a combination of things (sub components) forming a whole."
Is the non-person agent class you want to describe limited to software + hardware?
--Stephan
On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> A thought:
>
> responsible agent
> vs
> deterministic agent
>
> ?
>
> #g
> --
>
> On 12/02/2012 18:04, Paul Groth wrote:
>> Hi Satya,
>>
>> What's a good name for the class of both hardware + software agent?
>>
>> The key issue is that we need to distinguish between People and Software so I
>> this should be kept in the model.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Satya Sahoo wrote:
>>> Hi Luc,
>>> My suggestion is to:
>>> a) Either remove software agent or include hardware agent (since both
>>> occur together).
>>> b) State the agent subtypes as only examples and not include them as
>>> part of "core" DM.
>>>
>>> Except the above two points, I am fine with closing of this issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Satya
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>> <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Satya, Paul, Graham,
>>>
>>> I am proposing not to take any action on this issue, except
>>> indicate, as Graham suggested,
>>> that these 3 agent types "are common across most anticipated domains
>>> of use".
>>>
>>> I am closing this action, pending review.
>>> Regards,
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/07/2011 01:58 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>
>>> PROV-ISSUE-188: Section 5.2.3 (PROV-DM as on Nov 28) [prov-dm]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/__track/issues/188
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/188>
>>>
>>> Raised by: Satya Sahoo
>>> On product: prov-dm
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> The following are my comments for Section 5.2.3 of the PROV-DM
>>> as on Nov 28:
>>>
>>> Section 5.2.3:
>>> 1. "From an inter-operability perspective, it is useful to
>>> define some basic categories of agents since it will improve the
>>> use of provenance records by applications. There should be very
>>> few of these basic categories to keep the model simple and
>>> accessible. There are three types of agents in the model:
>>> * Person: agents of type Person are people. (This type is
>>> equivalent to a "foaf:person" [FOAF])
>>> * Organization: agents of type Organization are social
>>> institutions such as companies, societies etc. (This type is
>>> equivalent to a "foaf:organization" [FOAF])
>>> * SoftwareAgent: a software agent is a piece of software."
>>> Comment: Why should the WG model only these three types of
>>> agents explicitly. What about biological agents (e.g E.coli
>>> responsible for mass food poisoning), "hardware" agents (e.g.
>>> reconnaissance drones, industrial robots in car assembly line)?
>>> The WG should either enumerate all possible agent sub-types (an
>>> impractical approach) or just model Agent only without any
>>> sub-types. The WG does not explicitly model all possible
>>> sub-types of Activity - why should a different approach be
>>> adopted for Agent?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Satya
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
>>> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%204487>
>>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
>>> <tel:%2B44%2023%208059%202865>
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>> <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~__lavm
>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>